Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was recently presented with tragic news regarding the death of a unique and talented young man. Grant Koppelman, a native of Rapid City, SD, who worked in my office in 1986, was killed while traveling overseas. He was 30 years old. My heartfelt condolences go out to his family. Few individuals are blessed with the combination of intelligence, compassion, and personality that Grant possessed. With his disarming smile and quick wit, Grant could dissolve tension into humor, negating interpersonal conflict with great ease. At the same time, his ability to instantaneously analyze situations and articulate brilliant responses earned him instant respect from those who challenged him. Those skills served Grant well through his years in high school debate, his time spent working for me, his years at Harvard Law School, and his successful private practice. His professional life, however, was only a small part of this remarkable man's persona. Grant's love of knowledge and adventure continuously led him abroad. Members of my staff often would remark to me that they had heard from Grant while he was in Europe, or that Grant had written them about the political situation in Burma. Most recently he had sent out postcards from the Maldives Islands off the coast of India, with his usual promise that he would stay in contact. Grant had always made good on that commitment to stay connected to his friends. That fact, in part, helps explain the devastating shock we felt over his death. The few details we know tell us that Grant was hitchhiking in Ethiopia and that someone tossed a grenade into the car in which he and a friend were riding. Although a senseless act of violence took Grant from us at such a young age, he filled his life as completely as he was able, always looking for his next opportunity to learn, to challenge himself and to grow. His spirit greatly enriched those he touched, and we will miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate lost a very valuable member of the family. Chick Reynolds, the Chief Reporter of Debates, passed away early this morning. Mr. President, Chick's career in stenotype reporting began in 1949 at the Department of Defense. He was appointed an official reporter with the Senate Official Reporters in 1974 and became its chief reporter in 1988, where he served with distinction and loyalty. As many Members are aware, Chick's career as a stenotype reporter put him in the center of the headlines of the day. He reported the McCarthy and Hoffa hearings on Capitol Hill, as well as covering the administrations of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. In fact, Chick was in Berlin to cover the famous speech by President Kennedy. Chick was slated to retire, after 21 distinguished years of service in the Senate, on July 7. I know all Members of the Senate join with me in extending our sympathies to his wife, Lucille, on her loss. Chick will be missed by all who knew him, admired his abilities and knew the quality of his work.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not get the opportunity to respond to the majority leader prior to the time he made his statement on Bosnia. Let me say I am disappointed that the majority leader would come to the floor and make the statement that Democrats do not care about what happened in Oklahoma. I hope he does not mean that. I hope he did not really mean to say that, because that is wrong and in my view it is uncalled for. We care just as deeply as anybody on the other side about what happened in Oklahoma. I hope we do not have to hear a statement like that again on the Senate floor. We care just as deeply about responding to this issue, and we will respond to it. But we also care very deeply about our right to offer some fundamental amendments to this bill. Let me remind everyone this bill did not go through committee. This bill was not the subject of hearings. We went straight to the floor, brought this bill up on Friday, offered some amendments and took a week's break. If we care so much about this legislation, why in the world did we have to take a week off before we came back? Now we are on it, and this is the third day. Mr. President, I have worked on our side to bring the list of amendments down, as I said I would. We have gone from over 60 amendments to, as I understand it, 15 or 16. We have come to a point where we can finish this entire bill--and we can stay in as long as necessary to do it--in less than 12 hours. We will get all of the amendments up. We will have votes on them and very short time agreements. We will finish this bill tomorrow at whatever time we want to. We can do it. Everybody can respond. We can make our political points on both sides, if we have to, but we are going to complete action on this bill. But let me tell you, if we do not have a right to offer amendments on this bill, of if in some way we are prevented from doing so tomorrow and the next day, and this bill is pulled from the floor, I want to put everybody on notice that we will offer it to the telecommunications bill and every other single piece of legislation that comes on this floor until we resolve it. So this is not going to go away. Our rights are going to be protected. I want everybody to understand that. So, Mr. President, I hope we can work through this and I believe we can. I hope that in the course of the next hour or two, we can work through this, come up with an agreement, resolve our differences on procedure here, and finally come to a point where we can vote on final passage. We can do it. We need to work together. I know patience is strained on both sides. But I believe we have to accommodate Senators' rights here, and a Senator has a right to offer an amendment on this bill, as we have attempted to do. We are down to a short list, and I believe we ought to work through the amendments on it.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just briefly respond to a couple of points. First of all, the majority leader filed cloture before the first amendment was offered. I do not know what kind of good faith effort there had been to try to work on both sides to accommodate the interests that Senators have with regard to amending this bill. It did not appear to be much. Second, as I said, there is a very limited timeframe within which all of these amendments could be disposed of. Let no one confuse the issue. We are not trying to prolong debate on this bill. We are not trying to keep it from coming to final passage. We can do that tonight. We can do that before 8 o'clock tomorrow morning. All we have to do is work through the amendments. We have already agreed to a time limit. Indeed, we can have it both ways. We can accommodate all of those Senators who specifically said, ``I have a very important amendment relevant to this legislation, and I will do it in a very short timeframe, and I want to vote for final passage.'' So, it is very clear. No one should be confused about it. No one is trying to delay it. If it is pulled, we will have plenty more opportunities to vote on this legislation on whatever other bills come up before the Senate in the coming weeks. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the ranking member and chairman on the work they have done on the last couple of legislative days we have been on this bill. This is really just the second day we have been on the bill. As everyone recalls, this is not a piece of legislation that went through committee. We did not have the opportunity to review any of it in a committee. So even though the issue was subject to hearings, there was no specific hearing on this particular bill. We only had the opportunity to see it about a day prior to the time we recessed. Everyone now has, clearly, read the bill and had the opportunity to study it. So as a result, I think some of the amendments that were anticipated may no longer be required. But this is not a simple bill. This is not a small matter. This is a far-reaching piece of legislation that deserves our consideration. I think, given that, it is all the more remarkable that perhaps in a period of the next 48 hours, maybe less than that, substantially less than that, we will be able to complete our work. Senators have legitimate concerns that have to be addressed in the form of amendments. They will be addressed. They are cooperating on our side. As the ranking member said, I think there is a reasonable expectation we can bring that list down even more. People are cooperating, and I think together we can work this thing through and be finished certainly within the next couple of days at the latest.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader if he can give us some indication as to the schedule for the remainder of the day and perhaps on Monday when we return. Order of Business

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, like the majority leader, I also would like to be able to accommodate the schedule to move this legislation as quickly as we can. We need to send a clear message, not only to the people of Oklahoma, but others as well, that this is important. As the majority leader knows, we just received a copy of the draft last night. As I understand it, it has not yet been printed in the Record. We will be taking a closer look at it. I think, in spite of the fact that there may be some questions relating to the draft itself, we would be willing to enter into an agreement on the list of amendments so we can work through them. There are a lot of amendments there that may or may not be offered, but I think it does protect Senators since they have not had the opportunity to look at it more carefully. Certainly, over the course of the next several days, everyone will do that. But we want to expedite our progress on this and, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we can resolve what outstanding differences remain and come to a point where we can vote on final passage. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last Sunday the Nation lost one of its foremost leaders on military and defense policies, and I lost a good friend, with the passing of Les Aspin. I came to know and appreciate Les Aspin when we served together in the House of Representatives, and he and Junket, his huge, hairy sheep dog, shared an office down the hall from me in the Cannon House Office Building. I came to know and appreciate Les as a good and decent man who was never too busy to stop and exchange a joke with you. I also came to admire and respect him as a dedicated, selfless public servant. At the time of his death, he had spent more than 3 decades in public service as a Member of the House of Representatives, as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, as a chief adviser on military policy to the Clinton-Gore campaign, as Secretary of Defense, and as the head of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. No person could have been better prepared for these important and demanding positions. Les Aspin brought to them the best of education, including an undergraduate degree from Yale, a master's degree from Oxford University, and a Ph.D. in economics from MIT. And he had the best of training, as he had worked on the staffs of Senator William Proxmire, Dr. Walter Heller when he chaired the Council of Economic Advisers, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Not only was Les well educated and well versed in public policy, he was a person who cared deeply for his country and its citizens. Les Aspin may well be most remembered for his brief, but stormy tenure as the Secretary of Defense. To those who were surprised by his controversial tenure in this position, I can only say that I am surprised that they were surprised. Les Aspin has always been controversial--he was never afraid to take a position--at times, a lonely, unpopular decision. He was elected to Congress as a critic of the Vietnam war, but backed President Reagan's military buildup and the decision to go to war against Iraq. As chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Les Aspin was a one-man think tank, as he always seemed on the cutting edge of defense issues. An AP reporter dubbed him a ``strategic intellectual.'' He was as comfortable in dealing with foreign policy and defense issues as he was in reviewing Pentagon procurement practices. And he had that incredible and marvelous ability to present the most complicated and difficult public policy issues in simple and easily understood ways. Congressman Aspin was a logical choice to reshape the Pentagon and U.S. military in the post-cold-war era. When President-elect Clinton nominated him for the position of Secretary of Defense, the Washington Post noted that it seemed that Mr. Aspin had ``spent most of his professional life preparing for the defense secretary's job.'' The Washington Times remarked that he had ``devoted nearly every waking hour as a student, professional, and politician to thinking about weapons and soldiers.'' Everyone knew that the adjustments to the post-Soviet world would be difficult and controversial--and they were. Secretary Aspin did not shrink from these challenges. He welcomed them. His time as head of the Pentagon was a time of shifting international commitments, and new challenges posed by the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This included the painful [[Page S7648]] downsizing of the military and the review and revision of the Pentagon's budget and procurement procedures. It was a time for the reshaping of a military that for a half-century had been designed to fight global war, and would now be remolded for world peace, keeping missions and for international humanitarian expeditions. Mr. President, the accolades and eulogies now being delivered in honor of Les Aspin, are well deserved and well earned. The United States is indeed indebted to Congressman and Secretary Aspin for his years of public service, for his legislative achievements, and for his tremendous contributions to the defense of our great and free country. But I will always remember him as my good and decent friend down the hall, with that huge hairy dog, who was never too busy to stop and share a laugh with you. Mr. President, my wife Linda and I extend to the family of Les Aspin our most heartfelt condolences. We share their grief and their loss. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Americans rely on Federal lands for a wide variety of purposes. Among them is rangeland for livestock grazing. As we look to the future use of these lands, it is incumbent upon us to implement commonsense policies that allow ranchers to graze livestock on these public rangelands while managing them in a manner that is consistent with long-term, sustainable use. During the last 2 years, debate has raged over the appropriate regulation of Federal grazing lands. Environmentalists and those ranchers who graze on private land have argued for a more realistic fee system, one that links the grazing fee to the private land lease rate. Some have advocated stronger stewardship requirements. Meanwhile, as grazing policy remains unresolved, we have seen cattle prices drop and too many ranchers teetering on the edge of financial viability. There needs to be some fair and reasonable ground upon which agreement can be reached that ensures public confidence in the management and use of the Federal lands, while allowing ranchers the certainty that, by working hard and playing by the rules, the Federal lands will provide an opportunity to earn a decent living. In short, the time has come to conclude this long debate and establish realistic grazing standards once and for all. Secretary Babbit's Rangeland Reform proposals have called attention to this important issue and, at the same time, generated considerable controversy. While an open discussion of grazing reform is needed, a rising tide of misunderstanding and distrust has hampered the development of a broadly supportable solution. Today, Senator Domenici is introducing the Livestock Grazing Act, which is intended to provide much needed closure to this debate as well as certainty for the many ranchers who rely on the Federal lands for grazing. I commend Senator Domenici for investing the hard work and energy in meeting with the ranching community and fashioning a bill that enjoys their support. His bill represents an essential step in moving grazing reform to closure. I support much of the Domenici bill. It provides a valuable framework for addressing the critical issues of the fee, range management, and oversight, and, ultimately, I expect it to provide the foundation for the development of a balanced and reasonable approach to stewardship that addresses legitimate concerns of all interested groups. For example, I call attention to the provision in the bill that establishes separate management of the national grasslands under the Department of Agriculture. This initiative will help ensure that management of those lands is as sensitive as possible to the unique needs of ranchers. Currently, grasslands are subjected to rules and procedures that make sense for large expanses of national forests but not necessarily for grazing. In South Dakota, most ranchers who graze cattle on Federal lands do so on Forest Service lands. Ranchers in my home State feel a separate management unit for grasslands will allow them to ranch better. This legislation will accomplish that important objective. Congress' challenge is to strike a balance between the recognition of regional environmental differences and the need to ensure a basic level of environmental protection. It is to reform the grazing fee, without putting an untenable financial squeeze on hard-working ranchers. And it is to strike a balance between the desire to provide an opportunity for input into range management decisions from the general public and the recognition that these decision have special ramifications for the economic security of those using the land. We have not yet achieved that balance. But I am optimistic that we can, and I will devote my energies to working with Senator Domenici and others toward that goal. This is one of the reasons I have invited Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to visit with South Dakota ranchers next week in Rapid City. I want Secretary Glickman to hear first hand how those whose livelihoods are affected by Federal land management policies feel about the grazing issue. Their experience must be part of the solution sought in this debate. Senator Domenici has expressed a desire to move grazing reform legislation with bipartisan support. While some initial concern has been raised that the Livestock Grazing Act, as currently drafted, may not yet achieve the balance needed to ensure consideration of all legitimate interests in the management of the range, he has given Congress a solid place to start. I hope that, in the weeks to come, any contentious issues can be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of all interested parties, and that we can move to enact legislation with broad-based support. My goal is to pass Federal grazing reform. I am confident this Congress can achieve that goal.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for nearly a decade now, one of our primary tasks has been to leash the burgeoning budget deficit and keep it under control. As my colleagues well know, the process of reducing the deficit is a painstaking one, during which every item of direct spending is scrutinized. Even entitlements are today facing the budget ax--for example, this budget resolution envisions $256 billion in Medicare cuts alone. This scrutiny, however, is reserved for direct spending items. Yet, one of our largest areas of spending in the Federal budget is tax expenditures--exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, preferential rates, and deferrals of tax liability. While, at the margin, we can debate exactly what constitutes a tax expenditure, these items will drain about $480 billion from Federal revenues this year. Let me make it clear that I do not support a massive elimination of tax expenditures without regard to merit. However, this very large and important part of Federal spending--for, clearly, that is what it is-- deserves the same scrutiny as direct spending. Currently, tax expenditures receive only minimal attention on an annual basis. Nowhere is this information incorporated in the budget process in a meaningful way--a way that spurs action to limit this form of spending. There are no targets for tax expenditures called for in the budget resolution, and there is nothing to force members to view tax expenditures by budget function, comparing aggregate spending in any given area through both direct spending and tax expenditures. The Bradley amendment would require the annual budget resolution to set forth the total amount, if any, by which tax expenditures should be increased or decreased. The resolution would have to include such totals both for the upcoming fiscal year and, for planning purposes, for the following 6 fiscal years. additionally, the total level of tax expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year would need to be broken out among the major functional categories. The budget resolution would be subject to a point of order if it failed to include the information on tax expenditures that is required by the Bradley amendment. I applaud Senator Bradley for his continued leadership on this very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use additional leader time, if I must, to accommodate whatever time is required for my remarks. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member for what I consider to be an outstanding job. They have led this Senate in the last several days in a very good-faith effort, and I applaud their work, and I applaud the staff, especially, for what has been an extraordinarily arduous and extremely meaningful project for which we can all be very proud. Let me also say there is absolutely no disagreement with what the chairman said about those children. There is no disagreement about how concerned we are about the debt they are incurring. There is no disagreement whatsoever about their futures and how important it is that we address this budget. The only disagreement is how we got the interest amounts that were designated under each picture. The amounts those children have to pay, in large measure, were run up in the Reagan and Bush administration years, and everyone understands that. The question now is: How do we get out of it? Because for the last couple of years, that is what this administration has given us the opportunity to do--to begin making the downpayment on a balanced Federal budget. So this debate is about priorities. It is not about goals. Everyone understands the importance of the goal. We agree on the need for a balanced budget. We agree on the need for a date certain by which the budget should be balanced. We agree on the tough choices that have to be made. We offered over 50 amendments to this budget resolution and not one-- not one, Mr. President--would have increased the debt. Not $1. Only one moved back the date, because it was honest, because it did what we said a couple of months ago we had to do, and [[Page S7472]] that was to exclude Social Security. In fact, this budget resolution does not bring about a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002 as touted. On page 7, on line 21, it shows that we will still have a $113 billion debt, money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund to make the budget appear balanced. Whether or not Social Security is included, let me reiterate that this debate is about priorities. This debate is about what is important. With or without Social Security, we agree on the goal. When it comes to those priorities, this budget resolution, in the opinion of most Senators on this side of the aisle, is fundamentally flawed. We have many substantive disagreements, but most of them boil down to one core difference--the Republican majority has insisted on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 million Americans, and they have made that the highest priority above everything else. As a result, this budget takes the side of the privileged few. It virtually abandons ordinary Americans, families, students, veterans, seniors, and children. It demands deep sacrifice from America's middle class, while it showers tax cuts on the elite. We knew the Republicans had the votes to pass this resolution. That was never in doubt. What Democrats have tried to do is to reveal the truth about this budget and to try as best we can to improve it. Without increasing the debt, Mr. President, our priority was to ensure that millions of older Americans have access to health care, by taking $100 billion in tax cuts for the most prosperous among us and investing in the health of senior citizens. The Republicans said ``no.'' Without increasing the debt, we tried to help millions of young Americans by investing $40 billion in education and averting the largest educational cuts in our Nation's history. The Republicans said ``no.'' Without increasing the debt, we tried to assist 12 million working Americans by repealing a $21 billion tax increase by slightly reducing the huge tax breaks going to the 1 million wealthiest among us. The Republicans said ``no.'' Without increasing the debt, we tried to invest a small part of the tax cuts in science, technology and research. The Republicans said ``no.'' We tried to use the tax cuts to reduce the deficit. The Republicans said ``no.'' With our amendments--and without increasing the debt--we tried to help seniors, to lower the heavy burden on students, to attempt to be fair to veterans and to farmers and to small businessmen and to families, to reduce the deficit. And on virtually every occasion, the Republicans said ``no.'' We even tried to ensure that the middle class would be the beneficiaries if we had a tax cut, and that 90 percent of the benefit would not go to the 10 percent of us who are the most well-to-do. And again, the Republicans said ``no.'' Time after time, amendment after amendment, the wealthy won and the middle class lost. Fairness and equal sacrifice were great goals, but they were lost to the higher Republican priority--a tax cut we simply cannot afford. This budget is fundamentally flawed, Mr. President. It does not strengthen America; it weakens it. It does not bring us together; it moves us apart. The ``haves'' will have more and the rest will have less. It is not what the American people would have as their priorities, not when you put tax cuts for the privileged ahead of seniors, students, families and deficit reduction. But this is a long process. It is only the beginning. Today is the easy part. When the American people understand whose side this budget is on, I believe they will demand that we change it. By the time the committees confront the hard choices in reconciliation, the public will understand who is sacrificing and who is benefitting. This budget will be altered, or it will not become law. Democrats remain committed to balancing the budget. We remain open to working with Republicans to fashion a bipartisan budget. But it must be a budget that asks equal sacrifice and does not exclude the privileged few. It must be a budget that invests in America, even as we reduce spending, a budget that pulls Americans together, rather than divide us. We can do that, Mr. President. It is not beyond our reach. And the American people expect no less. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to wish Kathleen ``Kitty'' Wilka of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a happy sixty- fifth birthday. Mrs. Wilka was born Kathleen Kelly on May 25, 1930, in Larchwood, Iowa. On August 16, 1948, she married Bill Wilka, and, together, they have built a strong family of 12 children and, so far, 28 grandchildren. Their son Jeff has worked in my Sioux Falls office for many years. On behalf of the entire Wilka family, as well as my wife, Linda, and my staff, I want to wish Kitty Wilka the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Ernest K. Kopecky has served as construction manager for the Architect of the Capitol and the Congress of the United States for 17 years. He began his service in 1978 and will retire this year. His tireless and unselfish efforts have contributed to the completion of many construction projects in the Capitol and in other buildings in the congressional complex and in maintaining and preserving the structures that house the legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Government. Under Mr. Kopecky's direction, such notable and historically significant projects as the restoration of the pedestal for the Statue of Freedom that crowns the Dome of the Capitol building and restoration of the Bartholdi and Neptune fountains have been successfully completed. As a dedicated public servant, Ernest Kopecky has set an example for others. His genuine concern for quality of work and efficiency of those he supervises, his willingness to assist others, and his reputation for responsive service have brought great credit to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol and reflect positively on his colleagues in that office. [[Page S7491]] I congratulate Mr. Kopecky on his distinguished career and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope that we could have just a short description of what the amendment is prior to the time we are called upon to vote. In some cases, Senators in good faith have been waiting for an opportunity to offer their amendments and have been precluded from doing so. If we can accommodate each author of an amendment with a very short two-sentence explanation, I think it would be in the interest of everybody so that we do not make mistakes on what these votes may be.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is our understanding.

Mr. DASCHLE. This is a very workable agreement, Mr. President. The only way it can work, however, is that we anticipate the order in which these amendments can be brought for a vote. We have that order. So I encourage all the sponsors of these amendments to give the managers their descriptions so that these descriptions can be read and put in the order in which the amendments will be brought up. But the managers will have 1 minute to describe the amendment, and that description can be anything the sponsors may suggest they want it to be. But I think it will work out well. And it will allow us to cut back substantially the degree of time. I urge everyone's cooperation.

Mr. DASCHLE. There is another practical concern, if the Senator will yield; that is, that assumes that the sponsor of the amendment is going to be on the floor right at the time the amendment is to be called up. In many cases, we will not be able to guarantee that. So if we are assured that the manager has the description, we will know there will be an explanation. I hope we can accommodate this process. I think all Senators will have the opportunity to have this amendment at least explained prior to the time we have our vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the 20th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. It is a sad irony that at the same time we honor the brave men and women who served so valiantly in these two wars, Senate Republicans are seeking to cut funding for veterans' programs. I support a balanced budget, and I want to work with my Republican colleagues to get there. However, we can get to a balanced budget without damaging veterans' programs. To do otherwise says that the sacrifices of those who were ready to risk their lives can be cheaply bought and easily forgotten. It says that solemn promises by Government to those who have risked all in the service of Government can be casually disregarded. [[Page S7363]] The Republican budget resolution would slice almost $16 billion from veterans' programs over the next 7 years. Part of this savings would come from freezing VA medical care at the fiscal year 1995 level for the next 7 years. This would be a drastic blow to a system that is already sorely underfunded. It will affect every VA health care facility at the same time resources will be withdrawn from Medicare and Medicaid, leading to additional pressures on the VA system. The budget resolution also proposes to phase out VA construction by 1999. According to the Disabled American Veterans, that would lead to the cancellation of 215 projects needed to meet current health care delivery standards. Clearly, this ill-advised move would jeopardize the quality of veterans' care across the country. At the same time it cuts funding for needed veterans' programs, this budget resolution does nothing to prevent billionaires living abroad from renouncing their U.S. citizenship solely to avoid U.S. taxes on their fortunes. Although relatively few individuals choose expatriation for this purpose, the resulting revenue loss to the U.S. Treasury is significant. Specifically, closing this tax loophole would raise $3.6 billion in the first 5 years from an estimated two dozen individuals. The Lautenberg-Rockfeller amendment addresses both of these shortcomings in the current budget resolution. Simply, the amendment would deny huge tax benefits to ex-patriots and use that savings to restore some of the funding being taken from the VA. As this important amendment illustrates, we don't have to sacrifice the goal of a balanced budget to correct what's wrong with this budget resolution. We need only correct the badly unbalanced priorities it establishes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Pell, I send a modification of amendment No. 1165 to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified, agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. We have been discussing this agreement. This would not preclude second-degree amendments. The sponsors of the amendments would have to turn them in to the managers prior to 5:15. I think it is a good suggestion and I hope we can accommodate it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Exon's amendment to restore $15 billion in agricultural spending is a step in the right direction for rural America. It is a step in the right direction for the American families who depend on USDA nutrition programs. It stands in stark contrast to the Republican budget that takes these funds from rural America, not to reduce the deficit, but to fund tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans. The Exon amendment instead directs the $15 billion where it is most needed, to farmers who struggle each year to stay on the farm, to keep producing America's food and fiber supply, and to families who strike a rough patch when there is job loss or other bad luck, people trying to put food on the table and keep their families together. The Republican budget, on the other hand, raids rural America to aid the comfortable. The Republican budget proposal would cut $45.9 billion out of the Agriculture Department over the next 7 years. That is likely to translate to around $12 billion in direct cuts to farm programs. It is a 20-percent cut in farm spending. It will contribute to the further deterioration of the economic and social fabric of rural America. No other sector of American life is being asked to absorb such a hit. We cannot have a prosperous Urban America riding on the back of an impoverished Farm America. Yet that's what Republican budget cuts will produce. Farmers in South Dakota would see a devastating decline in their income of over $57 million. Other rural States will suffer similar pain. This budget is shortsighted for rural America and self-interested for the best off. It is not a balanced, fair proposal. It is not a budget that sustains the American tradition of building a strong farm sector, a tradition that has enjoyed bipartisan support until this Republican majority. Make no mistake, the agricultural community recognizes the enormity of the Federal budget and is committed to reducing it. Farmers are some of our most fiscally conservative citizens. But America's producers-- rightly--feel they should not be asked to bear a disproportionate share of spending reductions. They are right. America's producers have already contributed their share. Long before the budget cutters turned to other programs to see where we could cut, farm producers over the last decade have already seen commodity program spending decline more than 60 percent. Other parts of the Federal budget have expanded, while agriculture has consistently been cut back. Now we are cutting into live growth, not deadwood. If other Federal sending had been reduced at anything near the same rate as agricultural spending has been, we would have a budget surplus. In this context, to make farmers take another deep cut just to give the richest Americans a tax break adds insult to injury. Ideas have consequences and so do choices. If we choose to sacrifice a healthy farm sector to the momentary impulse to finance a tax cut, we will pay more down the road. We cannot disinvest and disinvest and disinvest in rural America, channeling support to virtually every other sector, without finally paying the price. The fact is, these cuts could easily cost us more than they save. Barely 10 years ago, in the mid- 1980's, we learned the price of misguided and mistaken policies that starved rural America. We paid billions to repair the damage done by shortsighted farm policies, unforeseen weather patterns and changing economic conditions. There were more farm and rural business foreclosures and bankruptcies than at any time since the Great Depression. Right now, producers in South Dakota and across the Midwest are suffering from unseasonably wet weather and destructive flooding. They cannot get their crops in the ground. So they will be struggling to make it through this difficult year even with the current level of farm spending. With the cuts in the Republican budget proposal, net income will plummet, and land prices will fall again. Another bad year could push many producers over the edge into insolvency. We can and should do more to streamline agricultural programs, both to make them farmer friendly and to curb costs. But there is a difference in curbing costs and what this budget proposal does. This budget imposes a straightjacket on Congress as we are trying to write a better, more responsive and more flexible farm bill. This budget will prevent reasonable reform, not promote it. It is exactly the wrong way to go.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this bill passed the Senate on a totally bipartisan vote of 99-0. I voted for it, along with every one of our Democratic colleagues. I had hoped I could vote for this conference report, especially given the hard work that the chairman, ranking member, and every other member of the committee put into the compromise that passed in the Senate. I particularly want to thank the ranking member for his efforts in bringing the bill to the point that we had it prior to the time it went to conference. And I would like to thank him as well for his efforts in the conference. Without his tireless effort, this conference report would lack even more than it does of the characteristics of the agreement we reached with the majority leader. I know that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member, did everything in his power to preserve that agreement. Unfortunately, despite those efforts, some key changes were made in conference at the behest of many of our Republican colleagues. As a result, I am unable to support this conference report today, and the President is absolutely right to insist that these changes be reversed. If they are not, the President, in my view, is right to veto the bill. This is a different bill than the one we supported when it passed the Senate. The bipartisan compromise we reached with the majority leader made it a bill that we could support and the President could sign. Unfortunately, in conference, that deal was undone. The priorities were changed. This is not a fight about deficit reduction. It is a fight about priorities. We all agree and have voted to cut over $16 billion as this bill proposes. We simply disagree about where the cuts ought to be made. The bipartisan deal we reached actually cut spending in the bill by $812 million. The Dole-Daschle amendment restored $835 million for investments in children and education. It paid for these investments with $1.65 billion in additional cuts in lower priority programs. The deal cut spending by twice as much money as it added back for children and education. Yet, the programs for which we restored $835 million were cut $685 million in conference below the amount provided in the Senate bill. In other words, 80 percent of the funds for programs we restored were dropped in conference. Those cuts, while a small part of the overall bill, betrayed the agreement that we had in the Senate. Worse, in my view, they undermined our highest priority: America's children and their families. The programs shortchanged by the conference agreement include child care, education, Safe and Drug Free Schools, child nutrition, and the President's national service program. As a result: Fifteen thousand fewer adults will serve their communities and earn money for education as AmeriCorps members; Two thousand fewer schools in 47 States will receive funds for comprehensive reforms that can boost academic standards; Several thousand young people would lose the opportunity to participate in apprenticeships in the School-to-Work Program; Nearly 20 million students and nearly 90 percent of all schools would lose the benefits of antiviolence and drug prevention programs. We simply cannot accept this effort to undermine a bipartisan agreement we made to protect our investments in children and education. At the same time, we have no debate with the bulk of the provisions in this bill. We accept and have voted for the same level of cuts contained in it. We would prefer to have a rescissions package that we can all support. Disaster funding for FEMA, the President's antiterrorism initiative, and the costs arising from the Oklahoma City bombing should not be held hostage because certain Members insist on cutting funds for children's programs. It is not too late. There is still time for us to accommodate many of these concerns, and I hope in the coming days that discussion and perhaps resulting negotiations can bring about a better result. If this bill is vetoed, we should quickly revisit the issue and make the changes that can allow us to support [[Page S7374]] and the President to sign a better bill. We are going to have to put the pieces back together in some form that accommodates our concerns, but also addresses the bipartisan concern about the need for $16 billion in overall rescissions. Whether it is done before or after, it must be done. Many of us prefer it be done before. But if it is done after, let us get on with it, let us do it, let us do our job and do it right. Several Senators addressed the Chair.